Editor’s note: This commentary is by Erica Heilman of East Calais.
This year we’ll be voting on whether to employ Australian ballot in our town of Calais.
I recognize that some people think the Australian ballot would encourage more and fairer participation in town governance. But there is no promise that the Australian ballot will encourage more participation over the long run, and we’d be giving up one of the longest-standing, most pragmatic traditions we hold in this state. Town meeting is the very last opportunity we have to come together, in person, and make decisions about our town.
Sometimes it’s uncomfortable. There are disputes. In fact, there are a lot of disputes. It is also unfailingly civilized. Everyone is invited to talk, and sometimes we change each other’s minds. In an Australian ballot, you vote yes or no. At town meeting, you can say, “Yes, but …” or “No, but maybe.” Proposals can be amended in a detailed way, in the moment. In Australian ballot, there’s no hope for consensus. There are no compromises, no creative solutions. No discussion occurs.
A more cynical view? Losing the details is losing the fight. Every organization or entity, like it or not, serves the people who run it, despite best intentions. Why would we give up the ability to go over all the little details of the budget and ask questions and weigh the facts together?
“Why are we spending $25,000 this year on pencils for the town office? Who needs that many pencils?”
“Since when does roofing cost that much? I got my house roofed last year for half that price.”
This level of detail will not exist on an Australian ballot, and there will be no explanation. Do we want to give that much power to the select board?
Sometimes it’s uncomfortable. There are disputes. In fact, there are a lot of disputes. It is also unfailingly civilized. Everyone is invited to talk, and sometimes we change each other’s minds.
I don’t think of Calais as a single community. There are factions, alliances, subcultures. There is “old Calais” and “new Calais” and Maple Corner and East Calais and North Calais. There are lawyers and loggers and farmers and trust funders. We like where the town’s headed. We don’t like where it’s headed. But we all live here. And we spend exactly one day a year together, acting as the legislative body for this town, and making our own priorities known and understood. Or trying to.
It’s not romantic. It’s not out of an article in Vermont Life or a folksy story on VPR. It can be messy and uncomfortable and fraught with grievances and resentments. But it insists we come to some agreement together. And whether you’re mad or happy about the result of a vote, there’s something to be said for feeling that way in public.
It’s possible that some people think it’s unreasonable, or unrealistic, impossible or simply inconvenient to commit one morning a year to making decisions about our town together, in person. My guess is that many more people could arrange to get to town meeting if they chose to. The price of having your say is finding a way to get to town meeting. Of course for some this is a larger price than for others. And I realize there is a small number for whom it is simply impossible to attend. Let’s be clear. There is no fully equitable solution. But I think town meeting is the closest we can come to making a messy democratic system …. democratic.
And if inconvenience truly is the only impediment, then why don’t we hold the meeting at night? Or, hell, hold it on a Sunday. Better to bend the tradition than give it away.
Let’s talk about Australian ballot this week. And let’s show up at town meeting and talk about it more next week. In person.
